O'CONNELL

Our state Constitution allows cities and counties to enact and enforce local ordinances so long as they are “not in conflict” with the state’s “general laws.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) Any conflicting ordinance is preempted by state law and thus void.

At issue here is a city ordinance allowing forfeiture to the city of any vehicle used to commit certain acts made criminal by state law. The Court of Appeal held that state law preempts the city ordinance. We agree.

I.

Plaintiff Kendra O’Connell filed this taxpayer action (Code Civ. Proc., § 526a) against the City of Stockton and its city attorney (City) challenging *1066 the constitutionality of a City ordinance labeled “Seizure and Forfeiture of Nuisance Vehicles.” Plaintiff sought to enjoin the City’s enforcement of the ordinance. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint, allowing plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. When plaintiff did not do so, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit.

On plaintiff’s appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed. It held that the forfeiture ordinance violated procedural due process because it failed to provide for a reasonably prompt postseizure probable…

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of my colleagues.

The ordinance at issue is a practical and responsible attempt by the City of Stockton (Stockton) to address problems it, and many other cities face on a daily basis. The ordinance speaks to a narrow, pressing and quite real local concern. Street commerce in drugs and sex forces innocent people to share their neighborhoods with pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers who use their streets as a bazaar for illegal transactions.

Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution provides, “[a] county or city may make and enforce within it limits all local, police, sanitary, and *1077 other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution, commonly referred to as the “home rule” doctrine, “reserves to charter cities the right to adopt and enforce ordinances that conflict with general state laws, provided the subject of the regulation is a ‘municipal affair’ rather than one of ‘statewide concern.’ [Citation.]” (Horton v. City of Oakland (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 580, 584-585 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 371 ] (Horton).) “[W]hen local government regulates in an area over which it…

Our state Constitution allows cities and counties to enact and enforce local ordinances so long as they are "not in conflict" with the state's "general laws." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) Any conflicting ordinance is preempted by state law and thus void.

At issue here is a city ordinance allowing forfeiture to the city of any vehicle used to commit certain acts made criminal by state law. The Court of Appeal held that state law preempts the city ordinance. We agree.

Plaintiff Kendra O'Connell filed this taxpayer action (Code Civ. Proc, § 526a) against the City of Stockton and its city attorney (City) challenging the constitutionality of a City ordinance labeled "Seizure and Forfeiture of Nuisance Vehicles." Plaintiff sought to enjoin the City's enforcement of the ordinance. The trial court sustained the City's demurrer to plaintiffs complaint, allowing plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. When plaintiff did not do so, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit.

On plaintiffs appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed. It held that the forfeiture ordinance violated procedural due process because it failed to provide for a reasonably prompt postseizure probable cause hearing…